I believe such argument have a place and time, but at least dissociate them from the original point ...
First, I'm not entirely sure this person is a he. In the absence of an indicator of which gender a person is, I typically don't assume.
"Oh please, you absolutely understood" is not a justifiable statement here. What knowledge do you possess of what I do or do not understand?
And I'm not being pedantic here: I actually though that 'polack was trying to weasel in the suggestion that Assange is guilty without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (which no Internet commentor really should be able to, barring a huge evidence mis-handling by the Swedish investigators).
As for the rest, what was meant higher up was that from the justice point of view at this stage of a case, whether the rape happened or not is not known nor required to make the decision, a complaint has been made and it is the job of the state offices (both police and justice) to ensure the case can go through unimpeded.
As such, the question asked clearly meant "if you make an accusation of rape against you, how much should the state be willing to pay to see the case go through if the person you accuse makes it difficult / what is the maximal amount after which they should stop".
Now, maybe english is not your first language, because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
Whether the person was really raped or whether that person makes it up does not change that amount, since the state does not know at that point and the amount is spent in order to see the case go through to figure it out.
Singular "they" works wonders.
> Now, maybe english is not your first language
Only non-programming language, actually.
> because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
I disagree, and that was the entirety of my point here.